Causes of Christian decline

[Confused]

While Christianity is still alive and dominant in the United States, in many other parts of the world, its been on a steady decline. There have been many postulated causes for this. Some of the most popular are:
-increased literacy and education has led to much critical inquiry into various
aspects of scripture capitalizing on the many discrepancies to point to logical
conclusions that it is mere myth, no more credible than the Roman Gods.
-scientific advancements have dispelled the occurrences of much of scripture
-society has reached a point where life isn't measured by the days until the final
reappearance of Christ. Generations are no longer living like Christ will return
tomorrow, as such, religion takes a back seat to todays life.
-the advancement of medicine has effectively explained many diseases and
disorders and offered treatments and cures in the form of natural medicine
rather than the ancient "snake oil" miracles.
-society has changed so dramatically that the average family has not the time to
devote to religion. Or todays society has reached a point where few things
aren't occurring 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, so adhering to many of the
principles in religious doctrine is simply impossible.
-and my favorite, mankind has gotten so weary of trying to figure out which form
of Christianity (or any religion for that matter) is the proper form that it is less
mentally taxing and time consuming to just not even give it thought.

For debate:
1) Which of the above would you consider being the cause for the declining
religious community? Or is there another cause you might attribute to it?
2) Do you think God would be consider any of the above reasons justified or
would He still hold you accountable even though the society now raising you is
the one that has perpetuated this decline and has passed these same values
onto you. In other words, would He be forgiving of the generation that currently
has to have a 2 income source just to make ends meet and as such, has allowed
religion to take a backseat? And what of the future generations that have these
same principles passed on to them? They know no better.

[justifyothers]

I agree that God is not tetsable by scientific methodology. That is the failure of science in that is is unable to test Spirit.

Failure of science or failure of God?

"Failure" may be too strong, but yes it is directed toward science: it is unable. God identified himself as "I Am." I am just not thinking that God has his identity wrapped up in scientific methodology.

Tell me, do you fully understand the 'I Am' statement in genesis. Do you know that in the original hebrew, it was a pun?

Goat - could you expand on this ??? I have not heard this before.

[alexiarose]

Whether it is a failure of science can be debatable. Some would say it is not an area that science should be involved in. Many believe, however, that God does not exist because science has NOT provided evidence. So, maybe it would be safe to fault science for not making itself clear. However, science also has "philosophical" schools of thought which I am sure do not help in creating a clear concise message of purpose. (Not unlike religion).

Ok, so if the existence of God isn't meant to be explored in the scientific realm, wouldn't that put the decline in faith on the shoulders of God?

If people think that God doesn't exist because science can't prove it, they fail to understand the nature of science and only prove their intellect.

As for the second part of the question, is it a failure of God? I say No. If one does not try, they do not fail. It would be if He ever made an effort to and then was not able to. He, clearly, has not made the effort. He inspired the Genesis writers to write about how He created the heavens and earth, with NO explanation of where He came from.

I am a bit confused here. God hasn't tried to prove His existence? He may not have tried to explain His origin, but I think the bible itself is His attempt at proving His existence. If people turn away from it because it was poorly written (or whatever their problem is with it), then that would clearly indicate a failure, right?

[OpenedUp]

I agree that God is not tetsable by scientific methodology. That is the failure of science in that is is unable to test Spirit.

Failure of science or failure of God?

"Failure" may be too strong, but yes it is directed toward science: it is unable. God identified himself as "I Am." I am just not thinking that God has his identity wrapped up in scientific methodology.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Is it the failure of science to prove God is a fact or is it a failure of God to prove God is fact?

Whether it is a failure of science can be debatable. Some would say it is not an area that science should be involved in. Many believe, however, that God does not exist because science has NOT provided evidence. So, maybe it would be safe to fault science for not making itself clear. However, science also has "philosophical" schools of thought which I am sure do not help in creating a clear concise message of purpose. (Not unlike religion).

As for the second part of the question, is it a failure of God? I say No. If one does not try, they do not fail. It would be if He ever made an effort to and then was not able to. He, clearly, has not made the effort. He inspired the Genesis writers to write about how He created the heavens and earth, with NO explanation of where He came from.

One problem I have always had when talking about science and religion is that many Christians (Not that you are saying this, I'm just saying) think that inability to prove or disprove some how shows that God must exist. It's kind of a faulty argument on Religion's part.

[Cephus]

I agree that God is not testable by scientific methodology. That is the failure of science in that is is unable to test Spirit.

That's not a failure of science, it's a failure of theology. You cannot come up with any way that "spirit" could possibly be objectively tested whatsoever, therefore it's RELIGION'S fault for coming up with a concept that is completely beyond rationality.

[myth-one.com]

A visiting pastor at a church I once attended made the statement that the church has lost the young generation, and he wondered why. The reason the churches have lost the young generation is that they are more intelligent than previous generations. They see the problems and question the old "fear of God" myths which parents and pastors preach to them. But parents and pastors do not have the answers to their questions. This has occurred in conjunction with the rapid decline of the family unit. Therefore, the inclination to "believe" blindly to please mommy and daddy has drastically declined.

Older generations rarely questioned their pastors. Pastors were admired and respected. If they said the Bible states such and such, they were believed without question. Today's youth are more intelligent, more questioning, and see the obvious flaws.

The old faithful "fear" theology is a tough sell to intelligent, questioning youth. Can any human explain how a God who is equated with love could have designed a system whereby the majority of mankind will suffer eternally in the fires of hell? Absolutely not! Answers such as, "Only God Knows," is no longer accepted by the youth or really anybody. Perhaps this explains the "success" of the so called "cotton candy churches" which simply refuse to discuss the "down" aspects of their religion.
======================================================================
So put me down as the main two reasons being:

1 -- Christianity has never spread the correct gospel message of salvation; and

2 -- People are becoming more intelligent daily.

Note that this is very similar to what Cephus stated earlier:

1) Availability of information.

2) The fact that Christianity no longer has much to offer.

I agree with Cephus and donate all my earthly tokens to him. The Atheist gets richer and the Christian (me) gets poorer. (OK, it is a paltry sum).

It might be interesting for those describing themselves as "former Christians" to indicate why they left the "fold."

[twobitsmedia]

Ok, so if the existence of God isn't meant to be explored in the scientific realm, wouldn't that put the decline in faith on the shoulders of God?

I didn't say it wasn't meant to, I said science says it cannot

If people think that God doesn't exist because science can't prove it, they fail to understand the nature of science and only prove their intellect.

I don't disagree.

As for the second part of the question, is it a failure of God? I say No. If one does not try, they do not fail. It would be if He ever made an effort to and then was not able to. He, clearly, has not made the effort. He inspired the Genesis writers to write about how He created the heavens and earth, with NO explanation of where He came from.

I am a bit confused here. God hasn't tried to prove His existence? He may not have tried to explain His origin, but I think the bible itself is His attempt at proving His existence. If people turn away from it because it was poorly written (or whatever their problem is with it), then that would clearly indicate a failure, right?

I guess before I answer I would like to know how the Bible is an attempt to prove his existence?

[twobitsmedia]

I agree that God is not testable by scientific methodology. That is the failure of science in that is is unable to test Spirit.

That's not a failure of science, it's a failure of theology. You cannot come up with any way that "spirit" could possibly be objectively tested whatsoever, therefore it's RELIGION'S fault for coming up with a concept that is completely beyond rationality.

It's not theologies interest to provide a test for science. Theologians have tested science and believe science exists. And you are right, I cannot come up with a way to test "spirit." To you, "spirit" is a concept and you can't come up with a test for a concept anyway, and why would anyone want to?

[OpenedUp]

I guess before I answer I would like to know how the Bible is an attempt to prove his existence?

If there was no Bible, what other proof would there be?

[OpenedUp]

I agree that God is not testable by scientific methodology. That is the failure of science in that is is unable to test Spirit.

That's not a failure of science, it's a failure of theology. You cannot come up with any way that "spirit" could possibly be objectively tested whatsoever, therefore it's RELIGION'S fault for coming up with a concept that is completely beyond rationality.

It's not theologies interest to provide a test for science. Theologians have tested science and believe science exists. And you are right, I cannot come up with a way to test "spirit." To you, "spirit" is a concept and you can't come up with a test for a concept anyway, and why would anyone want to?

I could make up several things that could not be tested by science but that certainly does not give them any foundation to be real or existent.

[alexiarose]

I am a bit confused here. God hasn't tried to prove His existence? He may not have tried to explain His origin, but I think the bible itself is His attempt at proving His existence. If people turn away from it because it was poorly written (or whatever their problem is with it), then that would clearly indicate a failure, right?

I guess before I answer I would like to know how the Bible is an attempt to prove his existence?

Without the bible, would we even know who God is? Without scripture to tell me God exists, would I even consider Him existing?